Chagigah 7b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him:

there is no need to teach us that he brings them all together on the first day. For

it is obvious

that it is so!

For

which of them,

of the sons,

do you designate as “sinners” ["

lazy ones]? Which of the sons will you make into “sinners,” who delay the mitzva of appearance,

and which of them do you designate as “zealous ones”—

For even without the verse, it is obvious that everyone must hurry and fulfill the mitzva of appearance on the first day.

Rather,

necessarily,

the verse

“every one of your males,”

for what purpose does it come [what does it come to say]?

—[what does it come to say]?

For the teaching of Aḥerim!

For it was taught in a beraita: Aḥerim say: The gatherer of excrement, the copper smelter, and the tanner are exempt from appearance,

as it is stated: “every one of your males,”

to teach:

whoever is able to ascend together with all your males

is commanded to ascend,

excluding these, who are unable to ascend together with all your males.

This statement has already been explained above, on page 4a.

Mishna:

The rule is: “Everything that is obligatory comes only from unconsecrated funds.”

That is: sacrifices that a person is obligated to offer must be purchased with unconsecrated money, but they may not be purchased with money upon which second tithe was transferred.

This rule is learned from what the Torah said: “And you shall perform the festival of Weeks for the Lord your God, according to the measure of the freewill offering of your hand.” “According to the measure” is an expression of “unconsecrated,” to teach that the festival offering, which is obligatory, and likewise everything that is obligatory, comes only from unconsecrated funds, and not from something that has sanctity [below, 8a].

And therefore:

appearance burnt offerings

that come

during

on the intermediate days of

the Festival,

are not

brought

except

from unconsecrated funds, and not from second-tithe money, since they are obligatory [Rashi. And the Gemara explains why it mentioned the intermediate days of the Festival].

And the peace offerings

from

from

money of

the tithe

second.

For offerings of rejoicing are not “something obligatory” where there is meat. Therefore, since a person has second-tithe money that he must spend in Jerusalem, he should purchase peace offerings with it. And below [8a] the verse includes all types of rejoicing for rejoicing [Rashi in the Gemara].

The festival offering of

the first festival day of Passover [and the same applies to the other festival offerings of the Pilgrimage Festivals] was disputed by the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel:

[and the same applies to the other Festival offerings] was the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

The House of Shammai say:

it comes only

from unconsecrated funds,

for it is something obligatory, and everything obligatory comes only from unconsecrated funds.

And the House of Hillel say:

it comes even

from second tithe

second.

And the Gemara will explain that even according to the House of Hillel it does not come from the tithe, for it is something obligatory; rather, according to their view, he may combine [join] tithe money with unconsecrated money, and the amoraim disagree in the Gemara as to how he combines them.

A person fulfills his obligation of rejoicing with any consecrated meat that he has for satiety. He need bring peace offerings for the sake of rejoicing only when he has no meat for satiety [Rashi].

And therefore:

Israelites fulfill their obligation

of offerings of rejoicing

with vows and freewill offerings

that they offered throughout the year, and when they ascend to Jerusalem for the Festival they bring them and sacrifice their fats, while the meat is eaten by the owners [Rashi],

and with animal tithe,

which is a peace-offering sacrifice, and the meat is eaten by the owners.

And the priests

fulfill their obligation of rejoicing:

with sin offerings and guilt offerings,

to which those ascending for the Festival were obligated, and which they brought on the Festival, and whose meat was eaten by the priests.

and with the firstborn,

which belongs to the priests and is eaten by them.

and with the breast and thigh,

which were separated from the peace offerings of Israelites and given to the priests to eat.

But

the priests do not fulfill their obligation

with birds [the bird sin offering eaten by the priests]

because satiety is only with the meat of an animal,

nor with meal offerings,

whose remnants are eaten by the priests, since they are not meat.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Burnt offerings “on the Festival” come from unconsecrated funds.

And it entered our mind to explain: Appearance burnt offerings that come on the intermediate days of the Festival come only from unconsecrated funds; therefore we raise the following difficulty:

Rather,

since the tanna said “on the Festival,” does he mean that

appearance burnt offerings

only

during

on the intermediate days of

the Festival are brought

only

from unconsecrated funds?

Does this imply that on the Festival

they come even

from the tithe?!

And

why?

But appearance burnt offerings are

something obligatory, and

we hold:

everything obligatory comes

only from unconsecrated funds?!

And if you would say,

and if you say that one should not infer “on the Festival they come from the tithe,” but rather

this it teaches us,

the tanna who said “on the Festival,” incidentally,

that appearance burnt offerings

only

during

on the intermediate days of

the Festival

are the ones that

are brought,

but

on the Festival they are not brought

at all, and he completes them on the intermediate days of the Festival; therefore he mentioned “on the Festival,” since they are brought only then.

It is impossible to explain it this way.

For according to this, necessarily,

in accordance with whom

does our Mishna, which prohibits bringing an appearance burnt offering on the Festival, accord—

with the House of Shammai!

And shall we explain our Mishna according to the House of Shammai, who prohibit bringing an appearance burnt offering on the Festival, and not according to the House of Hillel, whose view is the halakha, and who disagree with them?!

For we learned:

The House of Shammai say: They bring

on the Festival

peace offerings

of the festival offering and of rejoicing, since they possess “two advantages”: they are obligations of the day, and they contain eating for the owners [but vows and freewill offerings, which do not come as obligations of the day and can be sacrificed at another time, are not brought on the Festival even if they are peace offerings suitable for eating by the owners].

And the owners do not

the owner

lean upon them

on the Festival, because leaning is performed with all his strength, and it follows that he is using a living creature; and it is prohibited to use living creatures on Shabbat and Festivals by rabbinic decree of shevut. Rather, he leans upon them on the eve of the Festival, and it is not necessary that the slaughter be close to the leaning [Rashi below, 17a].

But they do not

bring

burnt offerings

at all, even appearance burnt offerings, which are obligations of the day, since they contain no eating for the owners.

Except for burnt offerings whose time is fixed, such as the daily offerings and additional offerings, which override Shabbat, and certainly override the Festival.

And the House of Hillel say: They bring

on the Festival

peace offerings.

And they disagreed in tractate Beitza, page 19, whether according to the House of Hillel vows and freewill offerings of peace offerings also come on the Festival, since they contain eating for the owners, or whether in this they agree with the House of Shammai, that only peace offerings which are obligations of the day come on the Festival, and not vows and freewill offerings, since he can bring them later.

And

they likewise bring on the Festival

burnt offerings.

And they disagreed in tractate Beitza 20b whether they bring only an appearance burnt offering, which is an obligation of the day, or whether according to the House of Hillel vows and freewill offerings of burnt offerings are also sacrificed on the Festival. In any event, sacrifices whose time is fixed, which override even Shabbat, certainly override the Festival according to everyone.

And they lean upon them,

even though leaning on the Festival is a prohibition of shevut; since it is permitted to bring them, they did not decree shevut so as to nullify the mitzva of leaning upon them [Rashi].

We have thus learned that according to the House of Hillel they bring an appearance burnt offering on the Festival, and it is impossible to explain that our Mishna mentioned “on the Festival” concerning an appearance burnt offering because it does not come at all on the Festival.

Therefore we answer in another manner:

Actually, the reason the tanna in our Mishna mentioned “on the Festival” is that they do not come at all on the Festival.

However, it is not speaking of an appearance burnt offering, but of burnt offerings of vows and freewill offerings.

And

our Mishna is deficient,

our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

in it:

Burnt offerings of vows and freewill offerings—

only

during

on the intermediate days of

the Festival are they brought,

but

on the Festival they are not brought

at all.

And an appearance burnt offering comes even on the Festival, and when it comes it comes only from unconsecrated funds

alone, and not even by means of combining funds.

And offerings of rejoicing come even from the tithe.

And concerning the festival offering of the first Festival day of Passover: the House of Shammai say:

it comes only

from unconsecrated funds, and the House of Hillel say:

even

from the tithe,

by means of combining funds.

It was likewise taught:

Burnt offerings of vows and freewill offerings—

only

on the Festival

are they

brought.

But

on the Festival they are not brought.

And an appearance burnt offering—

comes even on the Festival.

And when it comes, it comes only from unconsecrated funds.

And offerings of rejoicing—

come even from the tithe.

And the festival offering of the first Festival day of Passover—

The House of Shammai say

it comes

from unconsecrated funds,

and the House of Hillel say

it comes even

from the tithe.

Now the Gemara explains what we learned in the Mishna and the beraita, the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel concerning the festival offering of the first Festival day of Passover: Why did the tanna mention this dispute specifically concerning the first Festival day of Passover?

And we raise the question:

What is different about the festival offering of the first Festival day of Passover,

which the tanna mentioned in the Mishna and the beraita, and not the festival offering of the other Pilgrimage Festivals?

Rav Ashi said:

The tanna therefore stated his words concerning Passover because on Passover eve there is also another festival offering. If the group of those eating the Passover offering was large, and each person received only a small amount of the Passover offering, they brought a festival offering with it [called “the festival offering of the fourteenth”], so that they would eat from it first; and only after they had eased their hunger by eating the sacrifice of the festival offering of the fourteenth would they eat the meat of the Passover sacrifice. This was so that the Passover sacrifice would be eaten as a significant meal, “when satiated,” and not as a hasty eating intended to relieve hunger.

And

this our Mishna teaches us:

our Mishna:

the festival offering of the fifteenth [the festival offering of the Pilgrimage Festival],

[which is the Festival offering],

yes,

indeed, it comes only from unconsecrated funds, but

the festival offering of the fourteenth—

no,

it is not necessary to bring it specifically from unconsecrated funds; rather, it may also be brought from the tithe.